This thread is for discussing Ch. 5 - Evolution and Its Discontents. You can post within this framework or create your own threads.

---

kind of wonder why jacoby spends so much time talking about Herbert Spencer, as he was not a freethinker. The social darwinist ideas always make me think of Stephen Hawkin. Of course, he may be an exception (in many ways), but a social darwinist is similar a censor: they never know which bodies to cut out, because it's hard to tell in advance if something is an improvement or not.

On page 140, Jacoby says that Spencer's polictical conservatism has much more apeal for americans that for the British. However, it is hard for me to see how "If they(the poor) would rather die, that had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" would appeal to ANY much less many.

Edited by: ginof at: 9/1/05 1:57 am

p142 has one of the most interesting ideas (for me) in the whole book, I'm surprised no one has commented on it yet:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, Darwin stated explicitly that natural selection becomes subordiate to environmental factors - and man's own moral evolution - as soon as humans enter into a state of civilization.

---

How would that happen? Or perhaps, that is what civilization is: we take care of the less fortunate. Perhaps we're gettting less civilized.

I have tons of passages marked for comment...but I am on a hiatus. I just needed a break from things. I plan on posting in the future...even if it is after this discussion ends.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Missed opportunities in the advancement of secular values in America.

"Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church's fear that the teaching of secular science in public schools might erode the faith of Catholic children was a major factor in the establishment of the nation's first religiously based school system." p.128

I look at something like that and wonder where we would be today if the scientists, atheists and others had been more organized and more assertive and fought that establishment from it's beginning.

I'm not quite sure this turned out to be the problem it originally was.

I went to catholic schools and had very good science teachers, including chemistry classes taught by a priest and nun. The religion class always taught that there was no conflict between the bible and science becuase the bible is meant to be an interpreted, not literal document. So it seems strange to me that the origin of these schools is the fear of science being taught. Perhaps it was just where we were in time. The late 60's and 1970's were a time of liberalization for the church. I certainly see what comes out of the mouths of many US bishops as regressive.

I went to 12 years of Catholic school. I saw it clearly...and yes I had some good science teachers. But I also lived through the attempts a brainwashing and fear tactics. It far outweighs the few good teachers I encountered.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper